Com. v. Ray, T., Jr.
134 A.3d 1109
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Appellant Travis Ray was convicted after a bench trial of fleeing/attempting to elude (third‑degree felony), one count of accidents involving damage to an attended vehicle/property, and five counts of accidents involving damage to unattended vehicle/property. Sentence included 11½–23 months’ imprisonment plus 12 months’ probation and costs.
- Trial counsel moved to withdraw after Ray filed a complaint against him; counsel was permitted to withdraw and Ray proceeded pro se on appeal after a Grazier hearing; standby counsel was appointed for formatting help.
- Ray filed a pro se post‑sentence motion that was mailed from prison within the applicable ten‑day period (prison mailing rule). The trial court denied relief and Ray filed a pro se notice of appeal.
- The trial court ordered Ray to file a Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b) concise statement within 21 days; Ray filed a vague “Notice” and later (over four months later) an untimely, more specific 1925(b) statement without seeking nunc pro tunc relief.
- The Commonwealth moved to find the issues waived for failure to file an adequate and timely Rule 1925(b) statement; the Superior Court addressed preservation and procedural compliance rather than the underlying sufficiency/weight claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Ray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Timeliness and sufficiency of Rule 1925(b) statement | The 1925(b) statement was vague/deficient and the later filing was untimely; issues waived | Ray contends his May 5 "Notice" served as a timely 1925(b) statement and his post‑sentence motion was timely mailed from prison | Held: Issues waived. Court deemed the May 5 notice insufficiently concise and the August 26 filing untimely and not accompanied by a nunc pro tunc motion, so preservation failed |
| 2. Jurisdiction over person / court’s authority | Court has jurisdiction; procedural defects not argued by Commonwealth on merits | Ray asserted lack of jurisdiction | Held: Not reached on merits due to preservation failure |
| 3. Sufficiency and weight of the evidence (fleeing; accidents) | Commonwealth asserts convictions supported by the trial record | Ray argued lack of physical proof, contradictory officer testimony, dashcam ambiguity, weight/sufficiency problems | Held: Not addressed on merits because claims were waived for failure to preserve by proper 1925(b) statement |
| 4. Sixth Amendment / witnesses (compulsory process) | N/A — procedural default prevents review | Ray claimed denial of Sixth Amendment rights for failure to compel witness testimony | Held: Not reviewed on the merits because of preservation defects |
Key Cases Cited
- Grazier v. Commonwealth, 713 A.2d 81 (Pa. 1988) (on‑the‑record inquiry required before a defendant may knowingly waive counsel)
- Commonwealth v. Lord, 719 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1998) (Rule 1925(b) statement must be sufficiently concise and coherent to identify issues for review)
- Commonwealth v. Dowling, 778 A.2d 683 (Pa. Super. 2001) (Rule 1925 purpose and requirement that statement enable meaningful review)
- Commonwealth v. Woods, 909 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2006) (trial court may permit filing of amended or supplemental 1925(b) statement nunc pro tunc in extraordinary circumstances)
- Commonwealth v. Patterson, 931 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2007) (prisoner mailing rule and consideration of mailing dates where postmarks absent)
- Jiricko v. Geico Ins. Co., 947 A.2d 206 (Pa. Super. 2008) (Rule 1925(b) statement must be concise and coherent; vagueness may amount to waiver)